vz71:
Actually, you can’t presume that at all. At least not rationally.
There must be some hard facts to base the definitions on.
Well, honestly, it depends on what the man has. If it’s an extremely mild form of autism, or Asperger’s Syndrome, then certainly they can live on their own - they are another human being that you can have a rational discussion with. If, however, the disability is so severe that they stagger about city streets, attacking everybody that they see, then they cannot be accorded those rights.
vz71:
That is not an age. Please answer the question.
There really is no exact age. It is whenever the baby and mother are separated.
Verisimilitude:
Hitler and Stalin reasoned much like you. What other humans should not be afforded human rights?
Hitler and Stalin stripped separate and rational beings of their rights. I argue that non-separate, non-rational beings do not receive rights.
Verisimilitude:
You are equating a strand of proteins. I am equating viable human life. They are the same.
I’m afraid I cannot see how you can, in good faith, call a strand of proteins (not even a human cell) a human life on the same scale as that of a 20 year old man. I do apologize for my lack of imagination, but can you explain your position?
Verisimilitude:
an 90 yr old lady and a 3-day old infant in a burning building: you can only save one life- who do you choose/why?
Well, let’s say that I had no connection whatsoever with them, be it emotional, biological, etc. My instinct would urge me to save the child, as it seems to be in human nature to save children. However, rationally, I would probably choose the old lady, as she is both physically separate
and rational.
Verisimilitude:
You are clear. You are also wrong. Just because the umbilical cord isn’t cut they are one being?
I wouldn’t say that they are one being, yet they are clearly not separate.
To address the issue here, the reason I hold physical separation to be so important is due to the self-ownership principle. The mother, being the full master of her own body, has every right to do to it what she wishes.
Verisimilitude:
Why are yo so against assuming generally for a baby in the womb?
Verisimilitude:
Isn’t it irresponsible to end a life that is not yoiur own?
I am not morally responsible for anybody else other than myself, unless I enter into a contract with them. If I do not wish to supply nutrients for a fetus, I cannot be required to.
Verisimilitude:
So the autistic has a right to breath as long as he doesn’t crush another persons skull with forceps?
If you want to phrase it that way, sure. I prefer to think that the autistic has the right to exist without being “aggressed” against.
Verisimilitude:
Many Libertarians disagree with you on the life issue.
I find that a lot of people disagree with me for a lot of reasons, to be honest. Ah well. Makes for some interesting conversations.
Verisimilitude:
To exclude living human children in the womb from non-agression from others is twisted.
Self-ownership principle.
Neal:
Contraception is an objectively evil thing
Ah, Neal, be careful how you use the word “objective”. There are some objectivists among us who might take offense.
Neal:
I personally know women who have gotten ovarian cysts due to the pill that required surgery.
I don’t think that the issue at stake is whether or not it is harmful to the woman’s body. If action X harms person A, but person A is willingly performing action X, it’s really up to person A.
